REPRESENTATION
Examination Board for the European qualifying examination
By decision of the Examination Board of 20 January 2005 and with effect from 1 January 2006, the distribution of marks for paper D of the European qualifying examination is defined as follows:
40% of the marks available for paper D are awarded for part I and 60% for part II.
The time allocated to each paper does not change.
Instructions to candidates for preparing their answers
Having regard to Articles 13 and 15(1), (2) of the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives (REE) as worded in the text dated
9 December 1993 (OJ EPO 7/1994), the Examination Board has amended its instructions (Supplement to OJ 12/2004) with effect from 30 June 2005 to read as follows:
II. Paper A
6. Candidates are also expected to draft an introduction, ie that part of the description which precedes the examples or the explanation of the drawings. The introduction should be sufficient to provide support for the claim(s). In particular, candidates should give consideration to the advisability of mentioning the advantages of the invention in the introduction.
8. In addition to their answer, candidates may set out the reasons for their choice of answer in a supplementary note, indicating for example, why they selected a particular form of claim, a particular feature for an independent claim or a particular piece of prior art as starting point, or why they rejected or preferred a particular item of prior art. Supplementary notes from candidates to examiners cannot, however, replace essential parts of candidates' answers.
III. Paper B
12. Candidates may set out the reasons for their choice of answer in a supplementary note. If candidates consider that any part of the application ought to be made the subject of one or more divisional applications, they should, in such a note, clearly set out the independent claim(s) of such divisional application(s). Such a note should also set out the arguments in support of the patentability of the independent claim(s) of such divisional application(s). Such a supplementary note from candidates to examiners cannot, however, replace essential parts of the candidate's response to the EPO.